
Thk American Academy of Political and Social Science. 

No. 276. 

Issued Fortnightly. May 1, 1900. 


Proportional Representation and the 
Debates upon the Electoral 
Question in Belgium. 


Professor Ernest Mahaim, 

University of Ll£ge, Belgium. 


A PAPER SUBMIT 7ED TO THE 
AMERICAN ACADEMY OF POLITICAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCE 


PHILADELPHIA 

AMERICAN ACADEMY OF POLITICAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCE 


England: P. S. King & Son, 3 Great Smith St., Westminster, London, S. W. 
Franck: L. Larose, rue Soufflot 22, Paris. 

Germany : Mayer & Miiller, 2 Prinz Louis Ferdinandstrasse, Berlin, N. W. 

Italy : Direzione del Giornale degli Economisti, Rome, via Monte Savello, Palazzo Orsini. 
Spain : E. Capdeville, 9 Plaza de Santa Ana, Madrid. 






i 

.Jn 4 T'V 


Prtce , 25 cents. 


Annual Subscription, $ 6 x>o> 
















PUBLICATIONS OF THE ACADEMY 


Texts of Foreign Constitutions 

The Academy has published English translations, often with notes 
and historical introductions, of a number of Foreign Constitutions, 


The Constitution of Mexico. 

Translated by Prof. Bernard MOSES, Univer¬ 
sity of California. Pp. 47. Price, 35 Cents. 

The Constitution of Colombia. 

Translated by Prof. Bernard MOSES, Univer¬ 
sity of California.. Pp. 70. Price, 50 Cents. 

The Constitutional and Organic Laws of France. 

Translated by Prof. ChareeS F. A. Currier, 

Massachusetts Institute of Technology . Pp. 77. Price, 50 Cents. 

The Constitution of Prussia. 

Translated by Prof. J. H. Robinson, Columbia 

University. Pp. 54. Price, 50 Cents. 

The Constitution of Italy. 

Translated by Profs. L. S. Rowe and S. M. 

Lindsay, University of Pennsylvania . . Pp. 44. Price, 50 Cents. 

The Constitution of Belgium. 

Translated by Dr. John M. Vincent, Johns 

Hopkins University. Pp. 39. Price, 50 Cents. 


American Academy of Political and Social Science 

1 >» 

1 (* 

STATION B, PHILADELPHIA 








PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION AND THE 
DEBATES UPON THE ELECTORAL QUES¬ 
TION IN BELGIUM. 

I. 

By law of December 29, 1899, Belgium has adopted the 
system of proportional representation for the election of 
members of the two legislative chambers. Since 1895 the 
system is in use in municipal elections (Communal Coun¬ 
cils) in case no party succeeds in obtaining at the first 
election an absolute majority of the votes cast. But now 
for the first time proportional representation will be tested 
by a European state for all its deliberative bodies. Eng¬ 
land has indeed adopted, in some instances, minority repre¬ 
sentation on various boards but only in a small number of 
districts. In the Swiss Cantons, where proportional repre¬ 
sentation prevails, both population and territory are very 
restricted, while the Confederation continues under the 
majority regime. 

The Belgian experiment is interesting from two points 
of view. In the first place it will be permitted to the 
patriotism of the author, to assert that the evolution of 
political institutions in little Belgium is not indifferent to 
the large countries of an advanced civilization. Situated 
on the frontier of Germany and of France, and separated 
by only three hours at sea from England, Belgium has had 
for centuries the privilege of participating in the civilization 
of its powerful neighbors. If it be true that it has been 
subject particularly to the influence of France, especially 
in the first half of this century, largely through the common 
language of the ruling classes, it is not less true that it has 
Germanic traits deeply rooted in its character, and that it 
has borrowed from England, better, perhaps, than many 
other continental peoples, the practice of liberty, at the 
same time that it has followed England very closely in her 


70 



5 


o o 


Annaes of the American Academy. 

economic development. In consequence, and with due 
regard to the special circumstances affecting Belgium—for 
instance, its narrow territorial limits and its permanent 
neutrality—the causes which have modified Belgian insti¬ 
tutions are also at work in the larger states which surround 
her, but the effects are here sometimes more visible: the 
evolution is, in certain lines, more rapid. Thus industry 
on a large scale, coming from England, early assumed here 
a development which was only attained later in France and 
especially in Germany; the transition from the agricultural 
to the industrial state was accomplished in a very brief 
space of time. Such is likewise the case with the forma¬ 
tion of an industrial proletariat and the development of 
socialism. Nowhere in Europe is the labor party (collec¬ 
tivist) stronger and more solidly organized, and nowhere 
has it more chances and less obstacles before it to gain 
control. This is why it is not infrequent to hear it said in 
Germany that from a social point of view Belgium is the 
“laboratory rabbit” in which attentive observers may 
examine the various phases of the future evolution of the 
large states. Perhaps this may be applicable also to pro¬ 
portional representation. Certainly the parliamentary sys¬ 
tem calls for reform in all countries. It has not shown 
itself to be, as was generally believed at the middle of this 
century, the final mode of political organization, and at the 
moment when so many countries discuss the difficulties 
which it engenders, Belgium is seeking to strengthen it by 
perfecting it. 

In the second place, the circumstances which have led to 
this important reform are themselves instructive for politi¬ 
cal philosophy. Can there be in fact anything more aston¬ 
ishing than to see a government, controlling in the two 
chambers an enormous majority, confronted by several 
opposition parties, none of which might hope single-handed 
to gain power to prevent profound disruption in its own 
party, pass an electoral law whose first effect will be to 

[382] 


Electoral Question in Belgium. 71 

reduce its majority by more than one-third? Whatever 
may be the ideal justice of such a measure, whatever the 
sincerity and the love of equity which its authors profess, 
one can hardly conceive that the party leaders should 
take such responsibilities without imperious motives. It 
is necessary, in the case of the Belgian Catholic party, to 
examine its motives in order to explain the vote upon the 
new law. 

II. 

No account of the electoral debates of the past year in 
Belgium would be comprehensible if detached from the 
history of the political regime in the preceding years. The 
constitution of 1831 attached the suffrage to the payment of 
taxes; to be entitled to vote, a citizen should pay the state 
in direct taxes a sum to be fixed by the electoral law, but 
which should not be less than 20 florins (42 fr. 32 c ., approx¬ 
imately $8.46). The tax requirement first enacted was 
differential, being fixed at varying sums, according to the 
population of the localities. In the small cities and in the 
country, it was necessary to pay less taxes than in the large 
cities to acquire the right of suffrage—a premature applica¬ 
tion of the theory of subjective value. 

As to the method of election, the constitution prescribed 
that it should be direct ; that it should take place by 
administrative districts (arrondissement) and that the 
number of seats to be given to each district should not 
exceed the proportion of one for every 40,000 inhabi¬ 
tants. It was, therefore, the election of a varying number 
of persons in each district (scrutin de liste ). At that time, 
it should be noted, there was no question of political 
parties. All shades of opinion were united in the patriotic 
sentiment against the foreigners. The electoral districts 
coincided, for obvious reasons of simplicity, with the 
administrative divisions of the provinces. By making the 
number of seats of each correspond to its population, it was 

[383] 


72 Annals of the American Academy. 

thought to establish the most just equality. There was, 
moreover, at the outset, one district electing seven repre¬ 
sentatives, one electing six, two with four deputies, and the 
rest with one to three. 

The first important modification of the original electoral 
system took place in 1848. Belgium felt the shock of the 
events which convulsed France, and some agitation arose 
among the masses of the people in the cities. The Liberal 
party had, in 1846, been organized and had formulated its 
program. The wisdom of King Leopold I. led him to spare 
a revolution in not opposing, like his father-in-law, Louis 
Philippe of France, an obstinate resistance to the popular 
spirit. An electoral law diminished the tax requirement 
uniformly for all the country to the minimum established 
by the constitution. To have gone further would have 
been impossible without revision of the constitution, which 
could only be effected by a majority of two-thirds in each 
of the two chambers There were none, moreover, among 
the leaders of the Liberal party to demand the establish¬ 
ment of universal suffrage recently proclaimed in France. 
The new electoral system favored the Liberal party, which 
rested upon the support of the well-to-do classes in the 
cities and in the manufacturing regions. Led by a states¬ 
man who would have acquitted himself with credit in a 
largei>sphere of action, M. Frere-Orban, the party remained 
in power from 185710 1870. Free trade, which was enacted 
in 1862, gave a tremendous stimulus to industry and com¬ 
merce, thus increasing the population in the industrial 
districts where the Liberals had the majority, and also 
increasing the well-to-do bourgeoisie class of the cities. The 
Catholic ministry, which was at the head of affairs from 
1870 to 1878, was in the words of its chief, “content simply 
to exist, ” and passed over the reins of government anew to 
M. Frere-Orban from 1878 to 1884. 

During all this time the fundamental basis of the suffrage 
law remained by necessity immutable, as no majority was 

[384] 


Eeectorai. Question in Belgium. 


73 


strong enough to dream of undertaking a revision of the 
constitution. On the other hand, the conflicts of the two 
large parties became more and more acute. As a change of 
a few votes in a district sufficed to capture from eight to ten 
parliamentary seats, on which depended the fate of the 
government and of the party, the electoral body was the 
object of such cabals and intrigues, as few countries and 
few periods have furnished a parallel. There were 
divisions where every candidate made a personal visit to all 
of the voters. The pressure of influences both legitimate 
and illegitimate was exercised in a shameful fashion. The 
organization of committees and of political associations was 
marvelous. The efforts and resources of an extraordinary 
intelligence were spent in tricks and in frauds. 

Before each important election, laws were enacted to 
assure the independence and the secrecy of the ballot, which 
became increasingly rigorous. Thus, in 1877, a law pro¬ 
vided that the ballots should not be printed nor written by 
the voter; since that time in each voting place the voter 
receives an official ballot on which he marks with a pencil a 
point left blank within a black square. The vote is pre¬ 
pared in each voting place behind wooden screens which 
isolate the voter. Thus no external mark indicates the 
origin of the ballot. 

III. 

The fall of the Liberal ministry (1884) had been brought 
about among other things by dissensions which arose in the 
midst of the party by the extremists who demanded an 
extension of the right of suffrage. When the Conservative 
party entered into power in 1884, the electoral question had 
already been raised. But very soon another factor arose to 
modify considerably the respective positions of the two par¬ 
ties, which up to that time had contended for power: in 
1885 the Labor party was founded, which soon united in 
its labor leagues spread throughout the industrial district, 

[385] 


74 Annals of the American Academy. 

and around the powerful co-operative bakeries like the 
Vooruit of Ghent, growing numbers of the workingmen. 

In 1886, strikes accompanied by rioting and incendiarism, 
and necessitating the intervention of armed force, contrib¬ 
uted to bring the social question to the attention of the 
politicians. The chief of the Catholic Cabinet, M. Beer- 
naert, proposed, at that time, a certain number of laws 
regulating industrial enterprises which, though very mod¬ 
erate in their scope, are important because they opened the 
era of labor legislation in Belgium. One will readily 
understand that these concessions became less and less effi¬ 
cacious as the influence of the Tabor party increased. Sup¬ 
porting and even exceding the demands of the advanced 
Liberal party, they demanded universal suffrage. It was 
evident that a day would come when Belgium could no 
longer maintain the restriction of the electoral privilege to 
116,000 citizens. 

As the Catholic majority was reinforced at each election, 
as internal dissensions and the advice of the new Labor 
party rendered the return of the Liberal party to power 
improbable, M. Beernaert resolved to bring about a pro¬ 
found reform of the suffrage system before the masses 
should extort it by force. He had the chambers declare 
that revision of the constitution was necessary. This 
declaration involved the dissolution of the two chambers. 
In those which were elected in 1892, the Catholics lacked 
a few votes only to have, unsupported, the majority of two- 
thirds necessary to adopt the new articles. It was neces¬ 
sary, therefore, at whatever price, to gain some Liberal 
votes for the plans of the government. The revision was 
laborious. At first the government proposed a voting sys¬ 
tem based upon the occupation of a dwelling of a certain 
value, which was very low, and somewhat akin to the Eng¬ 
lish suffrage, but which failed to receive either on the Right 
or on the Left a sufficient support. After many experi¬ 
ments, an agreement was reached between the majority 

[386] 


Electoral Question in Belgium. 75 

of the Right and the advanced section of the Left, on a 
rule proposed by M. Nyssens, a Catholic deputy, who 
became later Minister of Industry and of Labor. That rule 
was the plural vote. 

Every Belgian of twenty-five years of age has the right 
to vote without condition of taxation, property, or educa¬ 
tion. In thus far the system is universal suffrage, but to 
moderate it, it is provided that certain classes of the citi¬ 
zens should possess one or two supplementary votes. One 
supplemental vote is given to those, who, being thirty-five 
years of age, are married (or widowers having legitimate 
descendants), and paying to the state at least five francs 
taxes, and to those who, being twenty-five years of age, are 
the proprietors of a small real or personal property. Two 
supplementary votes are given to citizens who,being twenty- 
five years of age, have received the diplomas of superior 
instruction or fulfill a public office or a private profession, 
which implies an education corresponding to that which is 
given in the institutions of secondary education. Thus the 
fathers of families, proprietors, educated classes and officials 
have their electoral power doubled or tripled. The plural 
vote of Belgium attempts, therefore, to grade the electoral 
influence of each citizen according to the interest which he 
has in the maintenance of order. 

At the same time the right of suffrage was raised to the 
height of a veritable function: the constitution rendered it 
obligatory with the threat of penalties, which are light 
enough, but which have in fact shown themselves to be 
effective. Thus the electoral body passed rapidly from a 
restricted tax-paying basis to a general plural vote. From 
the 116,000 voters of which it was composed in 1892, it 
passed in 1894 to nearly 1,200,000, casting in all 1,800,000 
votes. This reform attained its end in so far as the popu¬ 
lar agitation ceased for several years. 


[387] 


76 


Annaes of the American Academy. 


IV. 

The first effect of the revision of the constitution was the 
annihilation from the parliamentary point of view of the 
Liberal party. In the chambers elected in 1894, as i n ^896 
and 1898, the great party of M. Frere-Orban was reduced 
to almost nothing. In the senate alone a group of twenty 
Liberals, counting among them able leaders, defended with 
Liberal opinions with much ability, but with little practical 
effect—the higher chamber where the Catholic majority is, 
moreover, always more docile and more homogeneous, not 
having the habit of modifying laws which have been voted by 
the chamber of representatives. In the latter, the six or 
eight representatives who called themselves Liberals be¬ 
longed almost exclusively to the advanced group, which in 
many districts had made alliances with the Labor party, 
so that the opposition was in reality conducted by the 
socialists. 

The second effect of the revision was the success of the 
Labor party a^id the entrance of the socialists into parlia¬ 
ment. Conducted by able chiefs, such as M. Emile Van- 
dervelde, they were able to make from the tribune of the 
parliament the most active and effective propaganda in 
favor of their ideas. Each partial election (1896-1898) has 
demonstrated the solidification of their position in the 
industrial regions. One can readily conceive that the oppo¬ 
sition of thirty Labor representatives no longer had the 
same character as that of the Liberal industrialists of former 
days. To begin with, the centre of activity was displaced 
at the same time as the interests represented. The social 
question in all its forms and on all occasions took the front 
rank. Finally the tone and attitude of the speakers was 
very different—more frequent violence of language, more 
brutal interruptions, and a coarser eloquence characterized 
the sessions. 

Though more violent, the opposition was not, however, 

[388] 


Electoral Question in Belgium. 


77 


any more effective, for the Catholic majority obtained two- 
thirds of the votes, a formidable proportion which had not 
been acquired in many years by any party in Belgium. 
But this numerical force itself ended in weakness. Since 
the revision, contradictory tendencies appeared which 
have since become more and more acute. The Christian- 
Democratic party was founded, which in many points was 
at variance with the government and in agreement with the 
socialists. A certain number of Catholics, relying upon 
the encyclical of Pope Leo XIII. Rerum novarum , consid¬ 
ered it essential to the salvation of their party to have 
greater contact with the laboring classes and not to leave to 
the socialists the monopoly of the defence of the weak. 
They have borrowed their methods from the Labor party, 
have founded co-operative societies and trade unions. Of 
necessity, they have given voice to demands which find no 
approbation among the conservatives, the large land-holders 
and industrialists who form the bulk of the government 
majority. 

The third effect of the revision was to bring before the 
parliament the question of proportional representation, and 
to divide the Catholic majority on that question. It had 
long been a question for discussion in Belgium. An asso¬ 
ciation founded in 1871, of which M. Emile deLaveleye had 
been a member, had devoted itself in an academic way to 
the representation of minorities. After many debates and 
many experiments, it had contrived to bring about an 
agreement among its adherents on an ingenuous and sim¬ 
ple formula of a professor of the University of Ghent, M. 
V. d’Hondt, whose program consisted in three points; to 
assure, so far as possible, and beyond all party spirit, 
the power to the real majority of the country , the supervision 
to the minorities , and exact representation of all serious groups 
in the electoral body. Little by little a large number of 
political leaders of all parties subscribed to this motto, 
among them M. Beernaert. During the debates on the 

[389] 


78 Ann ads of the American Academy. 

constitutional revision he had already announced his inten¬ 
tion to prepare the way for proportional representation. 
The revision being accepted, it was necessary to make the 
electoral law which would determine the mode of voting. 
The government proposed proportional representation. We 
may be permitted to believe, without diminishing in the 
slightest the sincerity of the sentiments of justice which is 
at the base of proportional representation, that M. Beer- 
naert had at that time a very clear idea that it was the best 
means of assuring power to the Catholic opinions for a long 
number of years. As a sagacious statesman he knew that 
the largest majorities are not the most solid. The propo¬ 
sal of M. Beernaert was attacked with such vigor by an 
important group of his own party, that he deemed it incom¬ 
patible with his dignity to remain in power and resigned 
his office (1894). The majority system, therefore, re¬ 
mained in force for the legislative election. 

But in the following year the question arose of bringing 
the election of Communal Council in harmony with the 
new reforms, introduced by the constitution, the adherents 
of proportional representation succeeded in having accepted, 
as an experiment, a partial application of the system—all 
to the advantage of the Catholic party. It consists in this, 
that when a party does not obtain an absolute majority of 
votes, the seats are distributed among all the parties pro¬ 
portionately to the respective number of their votes. This 
application of proportional representation, fragmentary as 
it was, has had the greatest importance. It has accus¬ 
tomed the public to see in actual operation a system which 
it had considered so complicated. It has also shown under 
what conditions it can operate with success. Many of the 
provisions of the Communal electoral law have not been 
incorporated in the new legislative electoral law (thus the 
provision in regard to the quorum )* because experience has 

1 A provision that unless a party cast a prescribed fraction of the total vote, its 
ballots should be disregarded in distributing the seats. 

■ [390] 


Eeectorae Question in Beegium. 


79 


shown their disadvantages. It has, moreover, familiarized 
public opinion with the idea that it is right that each party- 
should be represented in the deliberating body, and that 
the absence of a numerous majority, obedient in all points 
to the direction of the executive power, is not in itself an 
obstacle to a good administration. Without doubt the gov¬ 
ernment of the large cities—where the three parties form 
each about one-third of the Communal Council—is not so 
easy as formerly, but all of its actions are supervised and 
scrutinized by minorities with which one has to reckon—of 
which the public at least has nothing to complain. 

V. 

It was to be foreseen that sooner or later this reform 
should pass from the local to the legislative elections. At 
the elections of 1896 and 1898, however, it was not an 
issue, but one after another all parties inscribed the reform 
upon their program. The Progressist party led the van, 
and the first proposition in parliament in this sense came 
from them. The moderate Liberal party, where it encoun¬ 
tered obstinate adversaries, finished by accepting it on the 
insistance of the Flemish Liberals, who saw in it a means 
of reanimating the political life in Flanders, where the 
hope of victory was completely lost under the majority sys¬ 
tem. A number of conservative Catholic associations had 
voted resolutions in its favor. The Democratic-Christian 
party was even more ardent in its favor; for to this group it 
offered the possibility of a separate and independent political 
life. The Labor party finally, although demanding in the first 
place universal suffrage pure and simple (that is to say, the 
equality of all voters and the abolition of the plural votes), 
had left its members free to vote for proportional represen¬ 
tation, as a demand of justice, although a certain number 
of socialistic deputies were entirely hostile to it. 

However, the electoral reform remained in the domain of 
possibilities rather than of necessities, especially in the 

[39O 


8 o 


Annals of the American Academy. 


eyes of the Catholic party. Two circumstances brought it 
to the first place in the concerns of the majority: on the one 
hand, the alliance of the electoral forces of the liberal and 
Socialist opposition; on the other hand, the outlook for the 
election of 1900 in the districts with a very considerable* 
population, among others that of Brussels, that is, those 
which controlled a large number of seats. 

Since 1894 one frequently heard that the Liberal party 
had definitely disappeared. The fact is that it no longer 
contrived to elect, at least in the chamber of deputies, a 
delegation proportional to the number of its members in the 
country. That number, however, was not to be neglected: 
in the elections of 1896 and 1898 it was 385,000 votes to a 
total of 1,800,000. How could this disproportion be 
explained? By the simple play of the majority rule. In 
the greater part of the districts, where formerly the Liberal 
party contended with the Clericals for the victory, it finds 
itself at present opposed by two adversaries, the Catholic 
party and the Socialists, equally distant from its aspirations 
and its ideas. If an absolute majority is not attained at 
the first election, a second takes place, where only the two 
candidates having the most votes can be voted for. The 
Liberal party, numerically the weakest, had, therefore, the 
alternative of voting for Catholic or Socialists. The party 
divided, its more conservative members voting for the for¬ 
mer, and the most advanced for the latter. In both cases 
there were no Liberals elected. Thus, if we may be 
allowed the expression, nothing remained for the Liberals 
except to choose the sauce with which they should be eaten. 
This situation was all the more irritating because with the 
obligatory vote they were obliged to participate in the 
preparation of the sauce. At last it appeared absolutely 
unsupportable. An extremely lively current of opinion 
became manifest in the midst of the Liberal party: as the 
Catholic party in power seemed infinitely more formidable 
than the Social party in the opposition, the Liberals began 

[392] 


Electoral Question in Belgium. 8i 

to decide, however reluctantly, to vote for the opposition 
candidates. Treaties of alliance were formed. A com¬ 
mittee composed of moderate Liberals and Progressists, 
called “the Alliance/’ proclaimed that such should be the 
general policy to be adopted. One of the Liberal chiefs of 
Brussels declared that he would rather make an alliance 
with the devil than to vote for the Catholics. 

There was nothing in this attitude to disconcert the gov¬ 
ernment and the majority, had they been certain to obtain 
in parliament a representation adequate to their electoral 
force in the country. This danger of coalition of the oppo¬ 
sition is normal in a parliamentary regime. But given the 
district system of voting, it would have been enough for 
this coalition to succeed in one or two large districts to 
reduce the formidable majority of the government to a 
minority. The district of Brussels, for instance, elects 
eighteen representatives, and a change means a displace¬ 
ment of thirty-six votes in the chamber. And, as the seats 
attributed to each district must be, according to the consti¬ 
tution, proportional to their population, this situation could 
only grow worse, as the agricultural districts, generally 
faithful to the Catholics, see their population increase much 
less rapidly than the urban districts, particularly the large 
cities. As, on the other hand, the majority system gives 
all the seats to the party which has the absolute majority of 
votes, and none to the minority, one can see how the out¬ 
come of future elections was uncertain and how, in short, 
the powerful parliamentary majority of the Catholics was 
precarious. Thus, the necessity for reform was at length 
recognized by the Right as unanimously as it had been long 
since by the Left for different motives. But if the existing 
electoral system was universally condemned, there was no 
agreement as to what should replace it. As the danger 
arose in the large districts, a part of the Catholic press 
began to propose simply to divide them; certain journals 
demanded only the division of the Brussels district. But 

[393] 


82 


Annals of the American Academy. 


how could this limitation be justified? The arguments 
which were good against Brussels were good against other 
districts. Furthermore, it was perceived that in the future 
similar causes would lead to a like situation in other places. 
Where should the line be drawn between large and small 
districts? The opposition denounced with the greatest 
energy the arbitrary character of this proposition, which 
deprived it of the only chance it had to overcome the min¬ 
istry. 

To avoid the reproach of being arbitrary, it was resolved 
to take a step forward and propose the abolition of the dis¬ 
trict system. The campaign was opened in the press in 
favor of an apportionment which should give one seat to 
each division. Instead of 41 districts, with the number of 
seats varying from 1 to 18, it was proposed that there 
should be 152 electoral divisions, each sending a single rep¬ 
resentative. Besides certain journals of the Right, some 
Liberal papers supported this plan. It was antagonized on 
the Right and on the Left by the adherents of proportional 
representation. The latter, in fact, gives equitable results 
only in large districts w 7 here there is a considerable number 
of seats to be distributed. The single vote system would 
have been an insuperable obstacle to its adoption. The 
only advantage of the single vote system was to furnish to 
the opposition a greater chance of electing its adherents 
through local and personal influences, but this advantage 
was offered in a much more complete fashion by propor¬ 
tional representation. It was not difficult for the partisans 
of the latter to demonstrate that the single vote plan might 
lead to results even more unjust than the district plan, that 
is, to gain a majority of seats to a minority of votes. Fur¬ 
thermore, it was reproached with degrading the level of 
elections by giving in each district a preponderance to local 
questions. 

Furthermore, these projects were shattered like the sea 
against the rocks by an unsurmountable objection. How 

[394] 


Electoral Question in Belgium. 


83 


could the “cutting up” of the districts be effected in an 
equitable fashion, that is to say, without party considera¬ 
tions? The adherents of the measure were challenged to 
produce an electoral geography which should satisfy every¬ 
body. 

In spite of this, however, the system appeared at one 
time about to obtain the assent of the majority of the right, 
and it is said of the crown, when two members of the cabi¬ 
net in favor of proportional representation, one of whom 
was the Prime Minister, retired. The direction of the 
cabinet devolved upon M. Van den Peerebom, who had 
been for fifteen years Minister of Railroads, an administra¬ 
tor of great capacity. But he was at the same time a man 
of extraordinary obstinacy and of overbearing brusqueness 
toward his adversaries. These personal defects were not 
without influence upon the course of events, as they con¬ 
tributed to exasperate the opposition. He undertook to 
establish a majority for a project based upon the single vote 
system. The negotiations lasted for a week, during which 
the political world was convulsed with an anxiety. It 
resulted in nothing but a compromise. It was necessary to 
come to an agreement of the adherents of proportional rep¬ 
resentation. 

On the nineteenth of April, 1899, the ministry presented 
to the chamber an electoral law in which the actual districts 
were maintained. Proportional representation was estab¬ 
lished, but only for those districts which elected at least six 
representatives. The practical result of this project was 
obvious. The Catholic party having in general the major¬ 
ity in the small districts, was assured the preservation of 
these seats. But on the contrary, it obliged its adversaries 
to renounce the chance of obtaining the absolute majority 
of the votes and consequently all the seats in large districts, 
by establishing a proportional distribution in which the 
Catholics would certainly gain a certain number of seats. 
The evident injustice of the project aroused a formidable 

[395] 


8 4 


Annals of the American Academy. 


resistance which was organized throughout the country. 
The Liberals, Progressists and Socialists united to reject it. 
The concentration of the opposition of forces which the 
government sought to avoid was accomplished with una¬ 
nimity and completeness. 

In the chamber the entire Left resolved to prevent by all 
means a vote upon the law. It announced to the ministry 
that it would not discuss the project and that it would make 
it impossible for the chamber to deliberate. In fact, when 
the moment for opening the discussion arrived, the obstruc¬ 
tion commenced. The retreat in a body of the opposition 
not being sufficient, they had recourse to disorder. As 
soon as a speaker of the Right attempted to speak, cries and 
the beating of desks overpowered his voice. The Socialis¬ 
tic deputies even brought musical instruments, trumpets, 
horns, etc. As the rules of order of the chamber did not 
foresee such a case, these proceedings were permitted. For 
hours the deafening turmoil of the Labor deputies struggled 
with the patience and the obstinacy of the speakers, and 
Belgium’s parliament had never seen such a spectacle. 

At the same time the streets began to agitate. Demon¬ 
strations uniting citizens and laborers filled the streets, par¬ 
ticularly those of the capital. In order to maintain order, 
the ministry brought from the province hundreds of mounted 
police. It was an irreparable fault. The brutality of these 
guardians of public order exasperated the population. Con¬ 
flicts occurred, pistol-shots, and injuries. The situation 
became so serious at Brussels that it was called a revolution. 

The ministry hesitated to maintain order by shedding 
blood, and announced the withdrawal of its project and the 
substitution for it of a project generalizing the application 
of proportional representation throughout the entire coun¬ 
try. From one day to the next the popular excitement at 
the signal of the Labor deputies ceased. M. Van den 
Peerebom left the ministry with two of his colleagues, and 
the cabinet which took its place, directed by M. Smet de 

[396] 


Electorae Question in Belgium. 


85 


Naeyer, presented on the eighth of August in the chamber 
the project which became the electoral law of December 29, 
1899. 

It was not without difficulty that the ministry obtained 
the requisite majority in the chamber. The adversaries of 
the reform were in fact numerous and resolute on the Right 
and gave it a terrible battle. They lost less because the 
proportional representation gained in adherents than because 
they were unable to devise a system of voting to replace the 
existing system with which all were discontented. On the 
Left, the governmental project had an unfortunate result: 
certain Liberals, convinced proportionalists, believed it to 
be their duty to vote for the law which established honestly 
and loyally a reform inscribed upon their program. The 
Socialists, on the contrary, even the proportionalists, only 
too glad to see a concentration of the opposition, not only 
voted against the law, but claimed that the engagements 
undertaken by the Liberals during the agitation against M. 
Van den Peereboom, constrained them to do likewise. A 
small group of Liberals shared these notions, and it was 
the occasion of most regretable personal quarrels. As a 
result, the new law was voted by 65 Catholics and 5 Pro¬ 
portionalists Liberals, against 35 Catholics and 28 Socialists 
and Liberals. 

VII. 

Before explaining the workings of the new electoral law 
it seems advisable to meet certain objections to the princi¬ 
ple and application of proportional representation. 

The objection is made in the first place that it rests upon 
the confusion of ideas, that it mistakes the nature of election. 
An election is a choice . The electors in their districts choose 
among the citizens those whom they judge the best equipped 
for the functions in question. The number of votes obtained 
has always been regarded everywhere as the indication of 
the wish of the electors to consider one of the candidates as 

[397] 


86 


Annaes of the American Academy. 


the best, as the elected. In some cases a plurality of votes 
is deemed sufficient; in others an absolute majority is 
required. Proportional representation, therefore, in per¬ 
mitting the election of a candidate who obtains a smaller 
number of votes than another, mistakes the very nature of. 
the election. It will no longer be, as has been claimed, 

4 ‘just.” To all this it is very properly replied that the justice 
of proportional representation rests not upon the nature of 
the election, but in the object of the election. This is also a 
choice, but a choice of representatives. It being impossible 
for the people to decide themselves all the matters which 
concern them, the people delegate to representatives the 
functions of deciding in their name. Of necessity, the 
election should make the parliament the mirror, the photo¬ 
graph, the representation of the body of electors. But is 
it the case when the majority (the half plus one) of votes 
obtains all the seats and the minority none? The simplest 
notions of distributive justice, on the contrary, require the 
distribution of seats proportional to the groupings of the 
wishes of the electors, that is to say, parties. If indeed the 
majority system should always give the majority to the 
party which has the most votes! But the contrary fre¬ 
quently occurs. Proportionalism, only, assures the prepon¬ 
derance to the party which is numerically strongest, but 
subjects it to the control or supervision of the minority. 

An objection of another kind was developed by the Cath¬ 
olics. Each party believes necessarily that its policy is 
best, that it is the truth. Each party aspires not only that 
the truth shall triumph, but that it shall not be continually 
beaten by its adversaries. Moreover, proportional repre¬ 
sentation gives to error the same rights as to truth . It ends 
in perpetuating error. One recognizes here the habits of 
thought of persons who believe themselves in possession of 
the absolute truth, and who in religious matters have estab¬ 
lished the dogma of the infallibility of the Pope. But is it 
necessary to refute a doctrine which in political matters at 

[398] 


Electorae Question in Beegium. 


87 


least is an anachronism and a nonsense? It is the peculiar 
merit of proportional representation that it rises above this 
narrow and limited point of view. The only truths which 
the various parties proclaim are subjective and relative 
truths, and not absolute verities. Moreover, truth can only 
gain by being subjected to contradiction and to discussion. 

Proportional representation was violently attacked “be¬ 
cause it rendered all government impossible. ” We must 
understand here “party government.” In fact, by giving 
to each minority its appropriate influence, it only dimin¬ 
ishes that of the majority. Sometimes, indeed, it does away 
with the majority when the majority system would have 
assured it a preponderance. How can government be car¬ 
ried on in face of strong minorities, always ready to intro¬ 
duce coalitions? Furthermore, the system tends to the 
minute subdivision of parties. It incites schism in giving 
a special existence to the various groups, even the smallest. 
To all this it was replied that proportional representation 
only gives to each party the exact share of influence which 
rightfully belongs to it. If it is strong enough to obtain 
the majority, it will have it much more surely than with 
the majority regime. If, on the contra^, it does not 
obtain a majority of the seats, it is because it does not 
represent the majority of the votes, and in such a case it 
would be unjust to give it the preponderance. The cohesive 
force of a party does not depend upon its representation in 
parliament, but on its internal constitution. Subdivision 
is produced in all systems of voting when a party has no 
longer the discipline, or the convictions of its doctrines, or 
belief in the propriety of the interests which it represents, 
or the respect for its leaders. Without doubt, under pro¬ 
portional representation the heyday of that party politics 
which consists in ruling with violence and cynicism, like 
ignoble victors who crush the vanquished, will have 
disappeared, but who will regret it. It is a singular 
thing that those who reproach proportional representation 

[399] 


88 


Annaes of the American Academy. 


with subdividing parties, also accuse it of rendering the 
majorities immutable of “stereotyping” them, as it is said. 
The fact is that brusque changes will be less to be feared, 
since the large variations in the number of votes in the 
majority system are abolished. But is that a reason fqr 
believing it to be the death of all political life? The contest 
will be, on the contrary, more intense for those seats upon 
which depends the fate of the party in power. 

VIII. 

The mechanism of the legislative elections in Belgium is 
naturally somewhat complicated. It is not possible to 
explain it here in all its details. Thus the greatest com¬ 
plication which arises from the fact that with a view to 
avoid bye elections (in case of the death of a deputy, for 
example) the law provides for the election at the same time 
with the incumbents, of alternate candidates who can only 
take the place of the former in case of death or resignation. 
I shall omit all reference to those alternates. 

The operations of the election can be divided into the fol¬ 
lowing groups: (i) The preparatory operations; (2) the 
voting; (3) the distribution of the seats to the different 
lists; (4) the determination of those elected on each list. 

1. In the first place the candidates must be nominated 
fifteen days in advance of the election. This nomination is 
made by the signatures of 100 electors accompanying each 
list of candidates. The sponsors who make out the lists 
determine the order of preference of their candidates: thus 
each party is free to determine in advance which are the 
best of its candidates which it desires to have elected. 
Numbers are given to each list by lot to determine its order 
on the ballot. The ballots are then printed at the expense 
of the public authority, which have at the head of each list 
and also at the side of the name of each candidate, a black 
square, in the centre of which there is a white point. 

L.«f C. [400] 


Electoral Question in Belgium. 


89 


2. The ballot is given by the presiding officer of the poll¬ 
ing-booth to each voter. The latter receives one, two or 
three identical ballots, according to the rights conferred on 
him by the law. In each voting place there are a certain 
number of compartments isolated by wooden screens where 
the voter blackens with a pencil or with a stamp the white 
part of the black square. 1 Then he places in the presence of 
the officers his ballot or ballots in the ballot-box. 

The voter can blacken but a single point; either at the 
head of the list or opposite one of the names. In the first 
case he votes for the list; that is to say, he adheres to this 
list and also to the order in which it has been prepared. If 
that list has eventually the right to one seat, the elector 


SAMPLE BALLOT . 1 



[401] 

























90 


Annals of the American Academy. 


thus indicates that this seat shall be given to the first name; 
if it has two, to the first two, and so on. If he blackens 
one of the points opposite the name of a candidate, he gives 
his vote first for the list, in order to determine the “elec¬ 
toral figure, ’ ’ but the elector indicates further that he wishes 
to modify the order of preference of the list so that if it 
should have the right to a seat, it should be given to the 
candidate for whom he has voted. 

Why should the elector vote for only one name in the 
list? It was put in this way to equalize the electoral power 
of all voters. Under the former regime there was an unjust 
inequality between the power of the elector in the small 
district and that in the large district. While with his sin¬ 
gle vote the elector in Brussels controls eighteen seats, the 
elector of a small town controls but one. It was desired to 
abolish this anomaly, and at the same time it was said to 
the adherents of the single vote system: “The new law 
should satisfy you. It establishes in fact the single vote, 
but instead of a physical division of the district, there is an 
ideal division into as many electoral districts as there are 
seats to be conferred.” At the same time it satisfied the 
needs of proportional representation. It should be said, 
however, that this limitation of a vote to a single name is 
not a condition of proportional representation. 

3. The vote being completed, it is necessary to determine 
the electoral figure for each list. This figure is obtained by 
adding all the ballots bearing a vote in each list either at 
the head or subsequently. This figure indicates the electo¬ 
ral force of each party, because it comprises all the votes 
for the list as given, as well as those which approve the list 
but seek to modify the order. The question then arises to 
divide the seats proportionally to this electoral figure. It 
is here, properly speaking, that proportional representa¬ 
tion is realized. The rule adopted by the Belgian law, 
among many other systems which have had their adherents, 
is that of M. d’Hondt, also called that of the Common 

[402] 


Electoral Question in Belgium. 


91 


Divisor. The electoral figure of each of the lists is divided 
successively by one, two, three, four, five, etc., and the 
quotients are arranged in the order of their importance 
until a number of quotients is obtained equal to that of the 
numbers to be elected. The last quotient is the electoral 
divisor. The distribution among the lists is effected by 
giving to each as many seats as its electoral figure contains 
this divisor. 

Suppose, for example, three lists whose electoral figures 
are as follows: Catholics, 24,000 votes; Liberals, 12,824 
votes, and Socialists, 15,000 votes. We then have: 



Catholics. 

Liberals. 

Socialists. 

Division by one ... 

24,000 

12,824 

15,000 

Division by two . . . 

12,000 

6,412 

7 500 

Division by three . . 

8,000 

4,274 

5,000 

Division by four . . . 

6,000 

3,206 

3.725 


Suppose that there are seven seats to be distributed. The 
quotients will be arranged in the following order: (1) 
24,000 Catholic, (2) 15,000 Socialist, (3) 12,824 Liberal, 
(4) 12,000 Catholic, (5) 8,000 Catholic, (6) 7,500 Social¬ 
ist, (7)6,412 Liberal. This last quotient is the electoral 
divisor which is contained three times in the electoral figure 
of the Catholic list, and twice in that of each of the other lists. 

Such is the method employed. It is not here the place to 
discuss its merits. It is sufficient to say that it has met the 
test of experience for four years in our communal elections, 
and that it has shown itself at once practical, simple, and 
sufficiently just. It is certainly superior to the system of 
forced fractions which was employed at one time in Switz¬ 
erland. If a list contains more seats than it has candidates, 
the seats not distributed are added to those coming from the 
other lists. 

4. Knowing the number of seats to be given to each list, 
it remains to determine among the candidates who shall 

[403] 











9 2 


Annaes of the American Academy. 


have the right to occupy them. When the number of can¬ 
didates of a list is equal to that of the seats to which it is 
entitled, the candidates are all elected. If the number of 
candidates is larger, the seats are given to the candidates 
who have obtained the greatest number of votes. To obtain 
this number, as many list votes are assigned to the first 
name as will insure it the electoral divisor, the list votes 
remaining are assigned to the second, third and fourth 
following names until they are exhausted. When this pro¬ 
cess is completed, the names having the largest number of 
votes are selected. 1 Should the number of candidates be too 
small, the alternate candidates can take the places of the 
regular candidates who are missing. 

IX. 

Such is the history of the political struggles which have 
led in Belgium to the introduction of proportional represen¬ 
tation. Though they concern only the electoral mechanism, 
it is certain that this reform is of the nature to profoundly 
modify, from the top to the bottom, our political system 
and the attitude of all our parties. Experience which 
will only begin with the present month (May, 1900) can 
only show whether the reform will open, as many hope, a 
new era of calm and sane politics in which the parlia¬ 
mentary regime will be originated. 

In any case I think that the electoral reform will begin 
by strengthening the government majority, and that for a 
time the length of which no one can measure. The authors 
of the reform have labored, no doubt, not only for the good 
of Belgium, but for the good of their party. 

Ernest Mahaim. 

University of Litge , Belgium. 

1 Suppose the electoral divisor to be 10,000, and that a given party entitled to 4 
seats has received 20,000 list votes and individual votes as follows: A, 4,000, B, 3,000, 
C, 4,000, D, 5,000, and E, 10,000, A’s vote is brought up by distributing the list votes 
to 10,000, B also has 10,000. A having received 6,000, and B 7,000, there are 7,000 
remaining sufficient to bring C’s vote to 10,000, and leave 1,000 for D. The vote 
race stands—A, 10,000, B, 10,000, C, 10,000, D, 6,000, and E, 10,000. In this case D 
fails of election and the seats are given to the other four candidates. 


/ 


The Am THE ACADEMY AND ITS WORK. 

in PhfladelplP Ic ^ Ac ^ DEMY ° E Political and Social Science was formed 
and social sci « *? ber 4 -’ i88 9 ’ for t ! le P ur P ose of promoting the political 
While it ( t nces > an( ^ was incorporated February 14, 1891. 
its chief objec l°f 8 JV ot Jr xcl ^ e any portion of the field indicated in its title, yet 
sciences whicf 18 th ? development of those aspects of the political and sicial 
or which do [V* re either eatlrel y omitted from the programs of other societies, 
objects may b l th * attention they deserve. Among such 

istrative Law ' r ?£ 10 o g ?’ C ® nipar . atlve Constitutional and Admin- 

tions of the /f] th< : S ? at f.’ Municl pal Government, and such por- 

^'^Iifpros^ 11 Il * vate< ^ b^existiDg^organi^ti^n 1 ^ 1100 and Ba “ king ' “ “* n0t 
and engagejj C ^^Jjk®^je c ^of te^foundation, the Academy has he!d meetings 

MEMBERSHIP. 

} )erson ma y be come a member of the Academy who having been 
a memb er shall be approved by the Council.”— Constitution 


‘‘Any 

proposed b* 
4Hide IV. 


/interested in the study of political, social and economic questions 
Encouragement of scientific research along these lines, are eligible 
f s 7 f . an J will be nominated upon application to the Membership 
f o1 the Council, American Academy, Station B, Philadelphia. 

0 Initiation Fee. Annual Dues, $5. Life Membership Fee, $100. 

V : • IVt a_/£v L HSVjO. 

Public meetings have been held from time to time at which the members of 
the Academy and others interested might listen to papers and addresses 
touching upon the political and social questions of the day. The meetings 
have been addressed by leading men in academic and practical life, a wide range 
of topics has been discussed, and the papers have generally been subsequently 
published by the Academy. 

The first scientific session of the Academy was held on March 14, 1890; 
three other sessions were held in 1890; seven in 1891; five in 1892; five in 1893; 
six in 1894; four in 1895; six in 1896; eight in 1897; eight in 1898, and seven in 
1899, or sixty in all. 

PUBLICATIONS. 

Since the foundation of the Academy, a series of Publications has been 
maintained, known as the Annals of the American Academy of Political and 
Social Science and the Supplements thereto. These publications have brought 
home to members accurate information and carefully considered discussions of 
all the questions embraced within the field of the Academy’s interests. The 
Annals is sent to all members of the Academy. 


ANNALS. 

The Annals was first issued as a quarterly, but since the-second volume 
it has appeared as a bi-monthly. At the present time, the Annals comprises 
two volumes of about 500 pages each per annum. The fifteen volumes thus 
far issued comprise 58 numbers, constituting with the supplements 10,435 pages 
of printed matter which have been distributed to the members of the Academy. 

Besides the larger papers contributed by many eminent scholars both at 
home and abroad, especial attention has been directed to the departments. All 
important books are carefully reviewed or noticed by specialists. The depart¬ 
ment of Personal Notes keeps the reader informed of movements in the academic 
and scientific world. Notes upon Municipal Government and Sociology preserve 
a careful record of events and other matters of interest in these subjects, 
which at the present time claim so large a share of public attention. 


To persons not members of the Academy, the price of Vols. I.-V., 
including supplements, is $6.00 a volume, and of Vols. VI.-XV., #3.00 each. 
Separate numbers #1.00 each. Special rates to Libraries: Vols. I.-V., $5.00 
each; Vols. VI.-XV., $2.50 each. 

Members are entitled to discounts varying from 16% per cent to 20 per 
cent on orders for back numbers or duplicate copies of publications. All cur¬ 
rent publications are sent to members free of charge. 







:ADE 

1075 
\ M3 
»y 2 


The American Academy 


OF 


Political and Social Science 

) PHILADELPHIA I • 


President, 

EDMUND J. JAMES, Ph. D., University of Chicago. 


V. . ^ 


Vice-Presidents 


SAMUEL M. LINDSAY, Ph. D., 
University of Pennsylvania. 


F. H. GIDDINGS, Ph) 
Columbia Uni vers/ 


WOODRuW WILSON, Ph. D., 
Princeton University. 



Secretary, 

L. S. ROWE, Ph. D., 
University of Pennsylvania. 

Treasurer, 

STUART WOOD, 
400 Chestnut Street. 


Counsel, 

Hon. CLINTON ROGERS WOODRUFF, 
Girard Bldg., Philadelphia. 

Librarian, 

JOHN L- STEWART, 

Lehigh University. 


j 

f 


GENERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE. 


RT. HON. ARTHUR J. BALFOUR, M. P., 
London, England. 

PROF. C. F. BASTABLE, 

Dublin University. 

PROF. F. W. BLACKMAR, 

University of Kansas. 

SIR JOHN BOURINOT, K.C.M.G., D.C.L., 
Ottawa, Canada. 

PROF. R. T. ELY, 

Wisconsin University. 

PROF. HENRY W. FARNAM, 

Yale University. 

PROF. W. W. FOLWELL, 

University of Minnesota. 

HON. LYMAN J. GAGE, 

Washington, D. C. 

DR. KARL T. VON INAMA-STERNEGG, 
Vienna, Austria. 

PROF. JOHN K. INGRAM, LL.D. 

Trinity College, Dublin. 


PROF. J. W. JENKS, 

Cornell University. 

PROF. E- LEVASSEUR, 

Paris, France. 

PROF. AUGUST MEITZEN, 

University of Berlin. 

PROF. BERNARD MOSES, 

University of California. 

DR. HENRY WADE ROGERS, 

President Northwestern University; 

PROF. HENRY SIDGWICK, 

Cambridge University. 

PROF. WILLIAM SMART, LL.D., 
University of Glasgow. 

SIMON STERNE, Esq., 

New York City. 

HON. HANNIS TAYLOR, LL. D., 

Mobile, Ala. 

PROF. LESTER F. WARD, 

Washington, D. C. 








